Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Syrian Civil War Developments

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ironduke
    replied
    Originally posted by tantalus View Post
    I'm inclined to disagree although I have empathy for your line of thinking, depending on the nature of the chemicals used, pain short and long term can be worse, effects can last a lifetime and into future unborn generations. Plus their inability to differentiate is total. I think one is worse than the other.
    You do have a point regarding some conventional weapons. But to borrow a saying, it's not what you got, it's how you use it. Conventional weapons are also being used by the Assad and Putin regimes as terror/indiscriminate weapons, and I regard the intentional indiscriminate use of a conventional weapon as a weapon of terror much the same way as using chemical weapons.

    There's these international conventions regarding the use of certain weapons, but when the Assad regime removes all medicine except for scabies and lice creams from a UN medical convoy, doesn't that have much the same effect as using an infectious biological agent, in a roundabout way?
    Last edited by Ironduke; 11 Apr 18,, 23:24.

    Leave a comment:


  • tantalus
    replied
    Originally posted by astralis View Post
    tantalus,



    if the example of Saddam getting executed all the while surrounded by his chanting enemies wasn't enough to deter another tinpot dictator from using chems, i doubt there's much of a historical example that will do so. some people just don't learn from past experience.
    Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
    If you DON'T use your chemical weapons, you might end up like Qaddafi.
    Both good points, but the more you deliver the message the more likely it is to be learnt. Plus I am not sure that's how most view the fall of saddam, using a different lenses,and inferring other conclusions.

    Originally posted by Mihais View Post
    Assad has almost won.
    Ideology, optimism, opportunity, we still need these tools no matter the realisms of the world. Deliver this message to Assad, now, one nobody can forget, let Putin watch, and there will be future wars were the precedent may have lasting value, even if Assad grows fat and lives to a hundred in Damascus. ( Edit. or Tehran)
    Last edited by tantalus; 11 Apr 18,, 23:25.

    Leave a comment:


  • tantalus
    replied
    Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
    Yes, Assad is using chemical weapons to inflict terror on a civilian population to force them to leave Ghouta, and weaken their will to resist. And while I certainly don't mean to make light of chemical weapon use, death is death. Choking to death from smoke inhalation from a fire cause by an incendiary device, slowly being crushed to death by a several hundred pound chunk of rebar and concrete, having your lungs cooked like haggis by a several thousand degree fire, getting shot in the groin and bleeding out over three days - there's no shortage of ways to die that are slow and terrible, with perfectly legal weapons. Yet the latter examples are all seen as a "clean fight" per say.
    I'm inclined to disagree although I have empathy for your line of thinking, depending on the nature of the chemicals used, pain short and long term can be worse, effects can last a lifetime and into future unborn generations. Plus their inability to differentiate is total. I think one is worse than the other.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ironduke
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
    I'll really really torn about this.

    On the one hand, innocent civilians getting gassed to death makes my blood absolutely boil with rage, and I'd love to see every piece of US, UK and French ordnance in the surrounding region dropped on Assad's military and political infrastructure. And, if by some odd coincidence, a couple dozen state-of-the-art Russian aircraft also happen to get granulated, well shit, that's just too damn bad.

    But at the same time, that just causes even more death and destruction and potentially invites retaliation from Russia, causing a downward death spiral.
    Yes, Assad is using chemical weapons to inflict terror on a civilian population to force them to leave Ghouta, and weaken their will to resist. And while I certainly don't mean to make light of chemical weapon use, death is death. Choking to death from smoke inhalation from a fire caused by an incendiary device, slowly being crushed to death by a several hundred pound chunk of rebar and concrete, having your lungs cooked like haggis by a several thousand degree fire, getting shot in the groin and bleeding out over three days - there's no shortage of ways to die that are slow and terrible, with perfectly legal weapons. Yet the latter examples are all seen as a "clean fight" per say.

    You got a good point though Top. But I don't think the Russians really have any state of the art fighter jets there. Just a couple of F-22 facsimiles with jet engines attached.
    Last edited by Ironduke; 11 Apr 18,, 23:28.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Russia appears to be readying for a naval battle with the US near Syria — but it could be a bluff


    Russia's navy appears to have responded to President Donald Trump's warning that US missiles are headed to Syria after he accused the Syrian government of again conducting chemical warfare against its people.

    The Russian military has said it is tracking the movements of the US Navy, Reuters reported Wednesday.

    Last April, the US struck Syria over another chemical weapon attack, firing 59 cruise missiles from US Navy destroyers.

    Now, satellite imagery and reports indicate that 11 Russian warships, including a submarine, have left a port in Syria.

    Those missing naval vessels have now been deployed at sea due to possible near-future strikes. Only one Kilo-class submarine remained.

    The US Navy says it has dispatched an aircraft carrier strike group to the region, though it is likely to take about a week to get in position.

    The US regularly deploys aircraft carriers to the region to carry out airstrikes on ISIS fighters in Iraq and Syria.

    Among the Russian ships that appear to have left the port in Syria is a Kilo-class submarine, thought to be one of the quieter and more advanced submarines in operation today.

    While Russian ships are less advanced in some ways, they often field advanced anti-ship missiles that can pose a real threat to the US.

    But Russia's movements may be a bluff, according to Ryan Bohl, a Middle East analyst at the geopolitical consulting firm Stratfor.

    "Neither the Russians or the Americans want World War III — they know how to avoid it and have very strong lines of communications," Bohl told Business Insider.

    "It's one thing to shoot down a Tomahawk" — a cruise missile used by the US Navy — "but another thing to shoot down a ship it came from," Bohl said, adding that the movement of Russia's navy was most likely a "way to try to raise the stakes for the Americans to pressure Trump to scale down whatever strike is coming."

    Essentially, Russia may be trying to look tough by sailing out its navy.

    "There's very little they can do from a conventional standpoint," Bohl said. Once the USS Harry S. Truman carrier strike group arrives, "the US will be able to clean up the eastern Mediterranean in a conventional fight any day."
    Link

    Before and After Pictures At Tartus
    ____________

    Looks like they're either going out to confront the US Navy...or, more likely, getting the hell out of Dodge while the getting is good.

    Leave a comment:


  • Versus
    replied
    Can anyone anticipate the next wave of "cultural enrichment" of Europe after this is done? God, they are playing both the West and Russia like a fiddle.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mihais
    replied
    Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
    If you DON'T use your chemical weapons, you might end up like Qaddafi.
    Assad has almost won.

    Leave a comment:


  • GVChamp
    replied
    If you DON'T use your chemical weapons, you might end up like Qaddafi.

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    tantalus,

    If this could be a watershed moment in the history for the use of chemical weapons,
    if the example of Saddam getting executed all the while surrounded by his chanting enemies wasn't enough to deter another tinpot dictator from using chems, i doubt there's much of a historical example that will do so. some people just don't learn from past experience.

    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    Some people think Assad is in Tehran. If so I suppose he is safe for now.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by tantalus View Post
    Given this, a strike big enough to make sure Assad will never think of using chemical weapons again is the best outcome surely.
    I agree, that's the only kind of strike worth contemplating, not a couple dozen Tomahawks, but hundreds of pieces of ordnance at a minimum.

    Something that makes Assad and even Russia rethink everything.

    Leave a comment:


  • tantalus
    replied
    If this could be a watershed moment in the history for the use of chemical weapons, with multiple countries coming together to deliver a message, atleast some small bit of good could be achieved.

    Leave a comment:


  • tantalus
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
    I'll really really torn about this.

    On the one hand, innocent civilians getting gassed to death makes my blood absolutely boil with rage, and I'd love to see every piece of US, UK and French ordnance in the surrounding region dropped on Assad's military and political infrastructure. And, if by some odd coincidence, a couple dozen state-of-the-art Russian aircraft also happen to get granulated, well shit, that's just too damn bad.

    But at the same time, that just causes even more death and destruction and potentially invites retaliation from Russia, causing a downward death spiral.
    I reckon a lot of us feel this way but if you ain't in it the full way not much good can be done, especially with the russians in it so far and the lack of allies on the ground, as others have already stated on the board. Given this, a strike big enough to make sure Assad will never think of using chemical weapons again is the best outcome surely.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    I'll really really torn about this.

    On the one hand, innocent civilians getting gassed to death makes my blood absolutely boil with rage, and I'd love to see every piece of US, UK and French ordnance in the surrounding region dropped on Assad's military and political infrastructure. And, if by some odd coincidence, a couple dozen state-of-the-art Russian aircraft also happen to get granulated, well shit, that's just too damn bad.

    But at the same time, that just causes even more death and destruction and potentially invites retaliation from Russia, causing a downward death spiral.

    Leave a comment:


  • Versus
    replied
    Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    Macron has stated the targets will be chemical factories and I wouldn't be surprised if SAA bases are hit as well. I can't imagine anything will be fired at Tartus.

    In fact, SAA equipment and personnel have been evacuating to Russian bases in the last 24 hours or so...

    That being said, it appears Russian ships based at Tartus have gone to sea.
    https://twitter.com/AmichaiStein1/st...93129983889408
    We will have to wait and see. I am guessing that it will start Thursday-Friday night. Friday is 13th, sounds about right.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X